Abstract
From the mid-1980s onwards, US courts have seen a dramatic increase in personal injury and criminal cases alleging harm caused
by sexual abuse whose memories were “recovered” after decades of forgetting. These recovered memory claims were countered
by the defense that they were false memories. Three types of personal injury cases have been the center of media attention:
(1) adult daughters suing their fathers for alleged childhood incest; (2) families and patients suing psychotherapists for
allegedly suggesting false incest memories; and (3) adults suing the Catholic Church alleging sexual abuse by priests. Legal
outcomes have been inconsistent in part because scientific controversy has called the reliability of recovered memories into
question. This article is the first in a three-part series that provides a forensic framework for understanding the current
state of the recovered memory/false memory debate. It briefly describes the reasoning behind inconsistent legal decisions,
identifying the minimum scientific issues that must achieve consensus to meet the needs of the legal system. It proposes epistemological
criteria for determining whether a consensus has been achieved. It then identifies recovered memory issues about which there
is now a consensus. The second article identifies recovered memory issues that lack consensus. The third article argues that
the scientific controversy reflected confusion about different memory types. It proposes a phenomenological schema to integrate
them and reduce legal confusion. It concludes that there is sufficient consensus about some recovered memory issues to meet
minimal legal needs, while more research is needed for others.
by sexual abuse whose memories were “recovered” after decades of forgetting. These recovered memory claims were countered
by the defense that they were false memories. Three types of personal injury cases have been the center of media attention:
(1) adult daughters suing their fathers for alleged childhood incest; (2) families and patients suing psychotherapists for
allegedly suggesting false incest memories; and (3) adults suing the Catholic Church alleging sexual abuse by priests. Legal
outcomes have been inconsistent in part because scientific controversy has called the reliability of recovered memories into
question. This article is the first in a three-part series that provides a forensic framework for understanding the current
state of the recovered memory/false memory debate. It briefly describes the reasoning behind inconsistent legal decisions,
identifying the minimum scientific issues that must achieve consensus to meet the needs of the legal system. It proposes epistemological
criteria for determining whether a consensus has been achieved. It then identifies recovered memory issues about which there
is now a consensus. The second article identifies recovered memory issues that lack consensus. The third article argues that
the scientific controversy reflected confusion about different memory types. It proposes a phenomenological schema to integrate
them and reduce legal confusion. It concludes that there is sufficient consensus about some recovered memory issues to meet
minimal legal needs, while more research is needed for others.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Pages 1-14
- DOI 10.1007/s12207-012-9122-y
- Authors
- Madelyn Simring Milchman, Upper Montclair, NJ, USA
- Journal Psychological Injury and Law
- Online ISSN 1938-9728
- Print ISSN 1938-971X